For years now, a segment of society has been searching for
a way to alter the male psyche in hopes of eliminating, or at
least mollifying, traditionally masculine behavior. Egalitarians
of all stripes banded together in long-term pursuit of a goal.
Institutions from across the cultural spectrum were enlisted
to bolster the effort. The ultimate objective - to reshape the
very essence and notion of what it means to be a man.

Expressions of what a man is and what a man does in society
can be seen when examining some of the common characteristics
of cultures throughout the world and across time. From the onset
of recorded history, the presence of male traits has been essential
to the cohesion and perpetuation of the family, and by extension,
the community. Changes in science, industry and technology have
not diminished the relevance and importance of many conventional
male components.

But something happened on the road to societal enlightenment.
Behavior that was typically associated with young males in their
formative years began to be classified as unacceptable. A world
that grew increasingly prone to reject absolutes and tout openness
was now ready to squelch any and all male tendencies with an
unyielding fist.

The king of all authoritarian rules has emerged in the form
of the "zero tolerance" program. Male speech and behavior,
in both child and adult interaction, have been curtailed by broad
and politically correct definitions of sexual harassment. The
proverbial strong, silent Gary Cooper archetype has been supplanted
with the supple, sensitive, teary-eyed lummox.

Males of the Cooper model have always exhibited certain key
characteristics. They were respected for their physical strength,
dexterity, courage, emotional balance and acumen and, as a result,
were relied upon in times of need. Though not unique to the male
gender, the virtues of courage, honor, commitment, fortitude
and loyalty were ably modeled by traditional men.

On the contrary, emotional weakness has historically been
perceived as incompatible with the leadership mantle, and rightfully
so. Decisions rooted in feelings tend to cultivate a spirit of
frailty, whose constitution will inherently lack self-control,
discipline and restraint. With such a dearth of substance, an
individual will lack the force needed to inspire, motivate and
direct others.

Some feminist have realized society's growing reluctance to
embrace the stalwart male image poses a serious problem and have
actually indicated that our culture is in the midst of a "crisis
in masculinity." Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Susan
Faludi, in a book entitled Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American
Man, opined that broad social and cultural forces were destroying
the very sense of what it means to be a man. She spoke in terms
of an empty "ornamental" masculinity that discards
once esteemed male virtues. Even as a feminist, Faludi saw that
men were being burdened by the same kinds of cultural stereotypes
that once encumbered women.

And so it is, in the present climate, refreshing and encouraging
that the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that a single
statement by a school district supervisor did not constitute
sexual harassment. Tyranny by lawsuit, particularly in the form
of sexual harassment, has sanitized the workplace to such an
extent that ill-defined "off-color language" has been
completely banished. Unfortunately, colorful communications of
all sorts have been chilled as well.

In its policy manual for employees, a major corporation warns
against the use of "elevator eyes." Minus a video,
the words themselves are but a small example of the difficulty
in defining sexual harassment. Now men and women are reluctant
to offer complements if they relate to appearance or clothing
or even attitude. In its recent unanimous, unsigned decision,
the United States Supreme Court restricted sexual harassment
to an incident that is "so severe or pervasive so as to
alter the condition of the victim's employment and create an
abusive working environment." This is consistent with the
common law notion that one cannot sue for emotional distress
unless the conduct qualifies as "outrageous."

Sensitivity is an admirable trait, and empathy is neither
inconsistent nor at odds with traditional masculine qualities.
But remember the goal? It seems that men relinquished more easily
than expected. Many changes are already in place. When the reordering
of the male disposition is complete and a pale vestige of the
former self is all that remains, our culture will not only miss
him. Virtuous society will be lost without him.